from Gary Hart's piece in today's Salon:

(On the U.S. Commission on National Security, which met from 1998 until it turned in its report in January 2001)

Why would a commission investigating the events leading up to 9/11 not want to know what an earlier commission learned about potential terrorist attacks and what recommendations it gave to the new administration? This would seem to any reasonable person to be of intense interest to the press and the public the media serves. Apparently not. Apparently the politics of whether National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice will testify under oath and the drama of personal assaults on chief terrorism advisor Richard Clarke exhaust media attention. It is difficult to know, or to understand, why this is so...

more here: "A Paul Revere no one wants to hear from"